The AI Selloff: What Your Broker Does on a Margin Call

The Fund That Was Right and Still Got Carried Out

In July 2026, Leopold Aschenbrenner's Situational Awareness — the most celebrated AI trade on Wall Street — could not meet its margin calls. On 30 July it sold its entire public equity book in a single block to Ken Griffin's Citadel and lost roughly 67% of its value for the month.

The thesis was not wrong. AI infrastructure did not stop mattering on 29 July. What happened was narrower and far more instructive: the positions were financed with borrowed money, the lenders wanted it back, and the sale happened on the lender's schedule rather than the manager's.

And here is the part that matters most to anyone reading this, because it is the part that cannot be copied. The fund survived on an asset retail investors are not allowed to buy. Its stake in Anthropic — valued at about $5 billion, according to Bloomberg — carried no margin, so nothing could force its sale. Crypto Briefing reported on 3 August that the remaining portfolio sat near $10 billion and the fund was still up around 80% on the year. The book that blew up was the public one. The book that saved it was private.

So the retail position is strictly worse in three directions at once: the same leverage risk, no unbuyable private stake to absorb the damage, and nobody bidding for your portfolio in a block.

We hold no position in any company mentioned and no affiliate arrangement depends on which broker you use. This is a map of what your paperwork actually says.

Disclaimer: This article is educational. Broker availability, fees, and country acceptance change without notice. Tax treatment depends on your specific residency and citizenship. Confirm current terms on each broker's site and consult a licensed advisor for personalized guidance. BrokerFit lists brokers in alphabetical order and does not weight placement by affiliate relationship.

1. Reconciling the Numbers, Because the Press Doesn't

Before using this story to argue anything, it is worth being honest that the reporting does not agree with itself. This matters: a confident dated figure lifted from secondary press is how misinformation enters a reference site.

Peak assets are reported across a range of roughly $20bn to $45bn, and no outlet reconciles the gap:

• CNBC's David Faber (30 July 2026) put the fund at about $24 billion in assets near its highs.
• Forbes (5 August 2026) wrote that it "grew to around $20 billion."
• Crypto Briefing (3 August 2026) and a Moneywise report syndicated by Yahoo Finance (3 August 2026) both give a peak of $45 billion.
• FinanceFeeds (31 July 2026) simply printed the disagreement as a range: "reported assets of $20–45 billion by early July 2026."

The likeliest explanation — and we flag this as our reading, not something any outlet states — is that the smaller figures describe net assets while $45bn describes gross market exposure, since the same reporting puts leverage at roughly 4x. Four times a low-twenties net figure lands near $45bn. But nobody publishes that reconciliation, so we quote the range rather than pick a headline.

The other figures are firmer, though not uniformly:

• The July loss: about 67%. The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times both reported this from the firm's own letter to investors.
• The Citadel discount: reported at around 10% by Crypto Briefing and Hedgeweek (both 3 August 2026) — but neither names its source, and FinanceFeeds reported on 31 July that the price "was not disclosed." Treat 10% as the market's estimate, not a confirmed print.
• The size of the block also varies: roughly $16 billion per Crypto Briefing, $10 billion per the Moneywise report.
• Leverage: as much as 4x, per CNBC's Faber.
• The run before the fall: 439% through June 2026, per the Financial Times.

Practical takeaway: the exact size is contested; the mechanism is not. Every version of the story contains the same three elements — concentration, leverage, and a forced sale at a moment chosen by someone else.

2. Nobody Is Bidding for Your Book

When a multi-billion-dollar fund cannot meet a margin call, prime brokers negotiate. FinanceFeeds reported that the margin calls came from the fund's prime brokers — Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Bank of America — and at the end of it Citadel bought the whole portfolio in one trade. That is a bad outcome — sold at the bottom, into a distressed tape — but it is a managed bad outcome.

There is no equivalent for a retail account. There is no negotiation, no workout period, no buyer for your positions as a package. What happens instead is mechanical: your broker closes your positions itself, at a level and a moment defined in a document you agreed to when you opened the account.

That document is not the same at every broker. We read nine of them against their primary sources on 31 August 2026, and the differences are real — but so are the false differences, and it is worth separating them first.

3. What Does Not Differ Between Brokers

A great deal of broker marketing presents two things as features. They are legal requirements, and presenting them otherwise would be dishonest:

The 50% close-out level. Under the ESMA product-intervention regime (Decision (EU) 2018/796, carried into national rules by CySEC, and mirrored in the UK by the FCA), a broker offering CFDs to a retail client must close positions when account equity falls to 50% of the initial margin required for the open positions. Admirals' own Leverage Policy ties its 50% trigger directly to "the formal adoption of measures on CFDs by the European Securities and Markets Authority and the CySEC." That is why XTB, Tickmill, Admirals, eToro and Trading 212 all publish the same number: it is the rule, not a competitive choice.

Negative balance protection. Same regime, same reason. Trading 212's CFD Terms put it in one line — "We provide retail CFD clients with negative balance protection on their accounts" — and eToro's terms are explicit that they do it "as required under any Applicable Law."

If a broker sells you either of these as its own generosity, you have learned something about the broker, but nothing about your protection.

4. What Actually Differs — Three Things

a) Whether you get a warning at all

This is the sharpest difference in the entire comparison, and it belongs at the top.

Interactive Brokers does not issue margin calls. Not "may not in fast markets" — as a stated policy. Interactive Brokers Ireland Limited's Customer Agreement, the document governing EU clients, says it in a clause headed IBIE will not Issue Margin Calls:

> "IBIE generally will not issue margin calls and will not allow a grace period in the Client's account for the Client to meet intraday or other margin deficiencies. The Client acknowledges that it is authorised to liquidate account positions immediately in order to satisfy Margin Requirements without prior notice."

No call, no grace period, no opportunity to choose which positions go. In a week like the last week of July, that is the difference between selling what you would have chosen and discovering what was sold.

At the other end sits Freedom Finance, the only broker of the nine whose documents give you a defined window to fix the problem. Its Margin Transactions Rules send an actual margin call with a same-day deadline:

> "Before the next 20:00 UTC after the moment the Margin Call was sent at, the Client shall execute the Margin Call, funding the Client's account with Funds or Securities or closing Open positions..."

The window is real but conditional: a separate "Critical Level" breach triggers forced sale regardless, and Freedom bears no liability for the shortfall either way.

The rest sit between. Tickmill states outright that it has no duty to warn — "The Company does not have an obligation to make Margin Calls to the Client" — even though its platform displays margin percentages. eToro closes "without prior notice to you and without an opportunity for you to choose the timing of liquidation." Trading 212 closes positions "without informing you in advance," and adds that the process is "activated with no human intervention." EXANTE may change margin requirements at any time and "is not required to provide you with advance written notice." Just2Trade operates a stop-out level that closes positions automatically, starting with the least profitable. XTB is the one that publishes both a warning threshold and a close-out threshold.

b) Which legal entity holds your account

This is the reader's actionable takeaway, and it is almost never on the marketing page.

A broker is a brand; your contract is with a company. Each of the nine we checked publishes its margin document under a named legal entity — seven under a Cyprus entity, one under an Irish one, and one under a UK one — each with its own licence number, its own client agreement and its own protections:

Broker	Entity whose document we read	Regulator
Interactive Brokers	Interactive Brokers Ireland Limited	Central Bank of Ireland, C423427
XTB	XTB Limited	FCA, FRN 522157
Just2Trade	J2T Services Ltd	CySEC, CIF 281/15
Freedom Finance	Freedom Finance Europe Ltd	CySEC, CIF 275/15
Tickmill	Tickmill Europe Ltd	CySEC, 278/15
Admirals	Admirals Europe Ltd (formerly Admiral Markets Cyprus Ltd)	CySEC, 201/13
EXANTE	EXT Ltd	CySEC, 165/12
eToro	eToro (Europe) Ltd	CySEC, 109/10
Trading 212	Trading 212 Markets Ltd	CySEC, 398/21

Three entries deserve a warning label:

• EXANTE runs three legal entities — EXT Ltd, XNT Ltd and LHCM Ltd. Everything above and on our EXANTE page describes EXT Ltd only. We did not read the other two entities' margin terms, and they may differ. If you hold an EXANTE account, the entity name on your agreement decides which rules apply to you.
• Freedom Finance's document governs the Cyprus entity. Clients onboarded from CIS countries are frequently placed with a separate Kazakhstan AIFC entity, which this document does not cover.
• The XTB document we read is XTB Limited's, the UK company authorised by the FCA under FRN 522157. Which XTB entity holds the contract for readers in the EU or the CIS we did not establish in this check, so do not assume the UK company's terms are the ones you signed — check the name on your own agreement.

The question to ask your broker is not "what is your margin policy." It is: which company is my account with, and can I have that entity's margin document.

c) Whether you are still classified as retail

Negative balance protection is a retail privilege. It disappears the moment you are reclassified professional — and reclassification is often something a broker invites you to opt into, in exchange for higher leverage.

The documents are blunt about it. Interactive Brokers Ireland puts it in capital letters: "IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A RETAIL CLIENT YOU WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR NEGATIVE BALANCE PROTECTION." XTB's Risk Disclosure states that "Professional clients do not receive negative balance protection." eToro's terms confirm that "Professional clients will not be subject to these restrictions." Admirals' Leverage Policy excludes professionals by design, on the reasoning that "they possess the necessary knowledge and experience." Tickmill's close-out level itself moves with your classification: 50% for retail accounts, 30% for professional ones.

Higher leverage and the removal of your loss cap are the same transaction, described from two directions.

5. The Trap Nobody Warns You About: Shares Are Not CFDs

Everything in section 3 — the 50% floor, the negative balance protection — attaches to the CFD product under the ESMA regime. It does not attach to you as a customer, and it does not follow you into other products.

Borrowing against real shares is a different product, outside that regime entirely. There is no mandated 50% close-out level and, critically, no negative balance protection. If the account goes negative, you owe the difference.

Interactive Brokers Ireland is the cleanest illustration, because both products sit in one agreement. Its negative balance protection clause is scoped specifically to CFD positions held by retail-classified clients. Its core product — margin lending against real securities — is not covered by that clause at all, and carries full client liability for any deficit.

The same structure appears elsewhere, without the CFD carve-in. Just2Trade states that "The Client shall bear sole responsibility for the financial result from the Client's Margin/Non-covered transactions even if negative financial result exceeds the sum of the Client's own Assets." Freedom Finance says a position "can be liquidated with loss to the Client, and only the Client shall be responsible for any related deficit."

Now bring that back to your own account. If you borrowed to buy AI infrastructure shares outright this year — the ordinary way a retail investor expresses that view — then you were in the uncovered product the entire time. The protections most readers assume they have were never pointed at it.

Practical takeaway: before you use leverage, establish which of the two products you are in. If you are borrowing to buy actual shares, assume the floor is your entire net worth, not your account balance.

6. What This Costs to Ignore

The fund at the top of this article had a correct thesis, professional risk systems, three prime brokers negotiating on its behalf, a buyer for its entire portfolio, and a private position that could not be margin-called. It still lost two thirds of its value in a month.

A retail account leveraged into the same trade had none of those five things. Being right about AI in 2026 was not the hard part. Financing the position so that a bad fortnight could not end it was the hard part — and that is a question about your broker's paperwork, not about the technology.

If you want to see the fee side of the same decision, our fee calculator covers the ordinary costs, and if you want the "how do I buy in at all" question rather than the leverage one, that is our OpenAI and Anthropic IPO guide.

FAQ

Will my broker call me before closing my positions? Depends entirely on the broker. Interactive Brokers Ireland states it generally will not issue margin calls at all and may liquidate without prior notice. Tickmill states it has no obligation to make margin calls. eToro, Trading 212 and EXANTE all reserve the right to close or change requirements without advance notice. Freedom Finance is the exception among the nine we checked: it sends a margin call with a deadline of the next 20:00 UTC.

Is the 50% close-out level a good feature to shop for? No — for retail CFD accounts it is a regulatory requirement under the ESMA regime, identical at every EU-regulated broker. Any broker presenting it as a differentiator is describing the law.

Does negative balance protection mean I can't lose more than I deposit? Only if you are classified as a retail client, and only on the products the protection covers. It does not apply to professional clients anywhere we checked, and at Interactive Brokers Ireland it is scoped to CFD positions — margin lending against real shares carries full liability for any deficit.

Which broker is safest for margin? We do not rank them, because the answer depends on which entity holds your account and how you are classified. The useful question is narrower: does your broker warn you before liquidating, and does its protection cover the product you actually trade? Freedom Finance publishes a cure window; Interactive Brokers Ireland publishes that it will not give you one.

Why isn't DEGIRO in this comparison? Because we could not verify it. DEGIRO's site is geo-blocked from our location at the network edge, and we could not open its margin terms from a primary source. We would rather leave a gap than publish an unverified policy.

Does any of this apply if I don't use leverage? No. Every mechanism described here activates only on borrowed money. An unleveraged position can fall to zero, but it cannot be closed by your broker to satisfy a margin requirement, and it cannot produce a debt.

---

Broker margin terms verified 31 August 2026 against each broker's own client agreement, risk disclosure or margin policy — the entity documents are linked on each broker's margin page. Fund figures are attributed in-text to the outlets reporting them and were not independently verified by us; peak assets are disputed across sources and stated as a range. DEGIRO is excluded because its terms could not be reached from our location.